Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:39:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Why is the voltage impactful: High volts produce LENR and high amps produce hydrinos? How does this distinction fit into Mills theory? To start with, 600 keV electrons will produce lots of X-rays. They could also bring about some beta-conversion reactions in nuclei. 6 eV electrons will only cause chemical reactions, primarily electrolysis of water, resulting in lots of free H atoms, which can then undergo Hydrino shrinkage. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:25:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. AFAIK the Proton-21 experiment uses 600 keV electrons. Mills uses 6 eV electrons. That's a huge difference. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. The Proton-21 system produces lots of gamma rays. It goes to reason the the SF-CIHT system will produce a ton of gamma rays. The proton-21 system also produces transmutation so it is a good bet the the SF-CIHT system will produce nuclear reactions. If Mills goes forward with the commercial development of the SF-CIHT system, the jig will be up on the hydrino. This means that Mills is using this demo to bring in staying alive money from investors just like Joe Papp did back in the old days. It is as plain as day, the SF-CIHT system will never be commercialized. It is too dangerous to do so, because it contains the seeds of the destruction of the hydrino fantasy. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Two readers of CMNS have objected to my posting of a non-nuclear energy technology, so this will be my last message to CMNS, at least for a while. The demo was of effects, not working systems. Expectations of energy gain ratios are premature, for the power requirements of necessary support systems were not included. Useful detains are given in the updated Technical Presentation, available on the website. Disappointments that Mills did not show a plug-and-play commercial system are **very** premature. I have log personal experience with the rough road between a laboratory 'effect' and a commercial product in my 38 years as a senior engineer at the former RCA corporation. It is much more difficult than expected, full of nasty surprises. I suspect that few members of the Vo/CMNS audience have any real conception of that world. Mills postulates a compact machine that positions pellets of fuel between the interlocking teeth of two meshing gears, electrically charged, which heat the pellet to its activation temperature in less than a millisecond. The resulting plasma explodes into two MHD converters, on either face of the meshing gr=ears. Residue of the pellets is collected and transported to a module which reconstructs and re-hydrates the pellets for re-use [reusable firecrackers, anyone? J]. Personally, I doubt that this function will be flawless, which implies a maintenance function: such is not a show-stopper, for even machine guns need cleaning. Activating the pellets at a rate of 1000 per second requires significant peak power, which can be achieved by known means, but must come out of the energy budget. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
Just like Proton-21, SF-CIHT must use a huge arc discharge to produce copper nano-particles from condensing copper plasma. A LENR reaction happens based on these nano-particles as residual EUV copper ion afterglow will explode them after nano-particle condensation out of the condensing copper plasma. Joe Papp used a weak high voltage spark to explode his water clusters since he somehow pre-formed these water clusters as a fuel preparation step. This mystery of how he preprocessed his fuel is what stops PAPP replication efforts. This is why the COP of the Papp engine is infinite and that of the SF-CIHT system is marginal. It is important to provide these water clusters through fuel preprocessing before the spark is triggered not after. By the way, experiments on exploding atomic clusters show that the energy release per atom is 2500 electron volts. This is where the energy gain comes from on these arc based atomic cluster exploding systems. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. The Proton-21 system produces lots of gamma rays. It goes to reason the the SF-CIHT system will produce a ton of gamma rays. The proton-21 system also produces transmutation so it is a good bet the the SF-CIHT system will produce nuclear reactions. If Mills goes forward with the commercial development of the SF-CIHT system, the jig will be up on the hydrino. This means that Mills is using this demo to bring in staying alive money from investors just like Joe Papp did back in the old days. It is as plain as day, the SF-CIHT system will never be commercialized. It is too dangerous to do so, because it contains the seeds of the destruction of the hydrino fantasy. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Two readers of CMNS have objected to my posting of a non-nuclear energy technology, so this will be my last message to CMNS, at least for a while. The demo was of effects, not working systems. Expectations of energy gain ratios are premature, for the power requirements of necessary support systems were not included. Useful detains are given in the updated Technical Presentation, available on the website. Disappointments that Mills did not show a plug-and-play commercial system are **very** premature. I have log personal experience with the rough road between a laboratory 'effect' and a commercial product in my 38 years as a senior engineer at the former RCA corporation. It is much more difficult than expected, full of nasty surprises. I suspect that few members of the Vo/CMNS audience have any real conception of that world. Mills postulates a compact machine that positions pellets of fuel between the interlocking teeth of two meshing gears, electrically charged, which heat the pellet to its activation temperature in less than a millisecond. The resulting plasma explodes into two MHD converters, on either face of the meshing gr=ears. Residue of the pellets is collected and transported to a module which reconstructs and re-hydrates the pellets for re-use [reusable firecrackers, anyone? J]. Personally, I doubt that this function will be flawless, which implies a maintenance function: such is not a show-stopper, for even machine guns need cleaning. Activating the pellets at a rate of 1000 per second requires significant peak power, which can be achieved by known means, but must come out of the energy budget. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:25:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. AFAIK the Proton-21 experiment uses 600 keV electrons. Mills uses 6 eV electrons. That's a huge difference. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
Why is the voltage impactful: High volts produce LENR and high amps produce hydrinos? How does this distinction fit into Mills theory? On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:25:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. AFAIK the Proton-21 experiment uses 600 keV electrons. Mills uses 6 eV electrons. That's a huge difference. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4
I spoke to BLP yesterday. They said they were working on the video of the demo of Jan 28th. and expected it to be published on their site next week. If the anomalous energy is as high as claimed it should be possible to demonstrate it even with a few pulses. I suppose we will see next week.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4
Yes...agreed, any water vapor blast demonstration is pure theater, This includes the Papp canon and the recent Mills demo. The hard part is the reformulation of the water vapor fuel and the efficient capture of the energy content of the water blast. If it were easy to meet these additional challenges, the Papp engine would have been duplicated many times over during these many decades. Mills is now in the same boat as all the other Papp wannabes. All these other pretenders failed to get their efforts over the top in terms of efficiency into the coveted over-unity zone. If the Mills process is producing any level of heat, it is already inefficient. The Papp engine ran cold; one of the reasons for its success. The Papp engine placed all its power onto the crankshaft, and not squandered it all in thermodynamically wasteful heat production. Mills is entering into the Papp meat grinder, and any investor that goes along with him is entering a world of pain. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: A familiar scene: critics who do not do their homework or claim 'objectivity' by moving goalposts and persistent negative spin. BLP in the years of study in the gas phase used microwave excitation and standard microwave practice with pure gases and commercial, laboratory grade instrumentation and water bath calorimetry. The latter was an insulated fish tan n in which the test cell was immersed, with a Joule heater, a stirrer, and a precision thermometer. With the Joule heater embedded with the test cell, it was possible to calibrate the response of the of the calorimeter to input power, and then to make accurate measurements of the energy produced by a test run. Outside qualified visitors observed and operated the system. This is a reliable way to measure energy from pulse reactions such as from the SF-CIHT cell, because the water bath integrates the energy produced in heating the apparatus. In posts to the BLP website about experiments, equipment used is identified. I have heard that BLP has accumulated $million in laboratory grade equipment with calibrations traceable to NIST standards, and a staff of Ph.D.s to desuighand perform experiments. Before the founding of B LP,, Mills commissioned experiments at universities and industrial laboratories with positive and negative results in a search for catalysts. Independence is a false standard. One wants others to repeat experiments, and run controls, which Mills has consistently done [if anyone was paying attention]. Experiments done by an antagonist who does not **duplicate** Mills is useless, for it is an imitation, not a replication. The tests by Dr. Conrads in Germany are notable, for he con firmed the effects claimed by Mills using means which differed in detail but were consistent in principle. The situation with Rowan and Professor Jannsson: See his home page and resume at http://www.rowan.edu/open/colleges/engineering/programs/electricalcomputert . I live an hour's drive from Rowan. It was once a small teacher's college, but with a $100 million endowment for a new engineering school, Rowan got naming rights. Since then, Rowan has grown in prestige and scope. Now a university, it is closely associated with NJ Rutgers University. Jansson was a technical scout at Atlanctic City Electric in a search for new investment opportunities. He was also the first graduate from the new Rowan engineering school. For his Master's thesis he chose replication of a BLP test, for which BLP lent him a Seeback calorimeter. I visited the Rowan library and read is master's thesis. I have also visited with Jansson who told me he recommended BLP as an investment for his employer t the time, Atlantic City Electric. As a reward, Jansson was allowed to make a small personal investment in BLP; usually the ante is in the $xxx,xxx. When Mills turned to solid fuels, one mode involved a chemical charge measures by a special calorimeter. A contract was given to Rowan to replicate **measurements** of this ecperiment, and for the chemistry depart to verify the reaction and arrange for NMR scans of the reacted material to verify the production of hydrinos. There is a clip on YouTube of Jansson conducting the experiment. Janssongot his Ph.D. from Cambridge University in England. The fact that the apparatus was furnished by BLP does not invalidate the authenticity of the results: to allege otherwise is to suggest bribery on the part of BLP and duplicity on the part of the professionals doing the work. Having an advanced degree is no guarantee honesty, lack of such credentials is no mark of virtue. Study and observation is required [i.e. Faraday, Edison]. The Papp explosion was pure theater. The pulsed reactions of the BLP solid fuels is an entirely different matter. IC Engines are devices to manage controlled repetitive 'explosions'. So is the BLP device under discussion.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4
Thanks for the review of BLP's history. We have to avoid conflating the, so-far enigmatic, demo of the day before yesterday with the long history of work at BLP. That long history of work would indicate that, from the public's point of view, BLP is in the same boat as Rossi, et al, except having been funded at much greater levels: There is a real phenomenon but the theory is either unknown or has not gone through an open scientific process of testing -- understanding that replication at the early stages frequently requires the participation of the original investigator and the science does not benefit from critics nay-saying regarding independence. No one that I have seen has been particularly critical of the pulsed nature, per se, of either then experiment or of the eventual device (the press release even says the device can be made continuous). In a public demo of a _single_ pulse, you have to be in dimensions of energy -- not power -- and the calorimetry has to be static or bomb. So far, none of the verbiage has involved units of dimension energy and we have only indirect verbiage regarding the calorimetry. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: A familiar scene: critics who do not do their homework or claim 'objectivity' by moving goalposts and persistent negative spin. BLP in the years of study in the gas phase used microwave excitation and standard microwave practice with pure gases and commercial, laboratory grade instrumentation and water bath calorimetry. The latter was an insulated fish tan n in which the test cell was immersed, with a Joule heater, a stirrer, and a precision thermometer. With the Joule heater embedded with the test cell, it was possible to calibrate the response of the of the calorimeter to input power, and then to make accurate measurements of the energy produced by a test run. Outside qualified visitors observed and operated the system. This is a reliable way to measure energy from pulse reactions such as from the SF-CIHT cell, because the water bath integrates the energy produced in heating the apparatus. In posts to the BLP website about experiments, equipment used is identified. I have heard that BLP has accumulated $million in laboratory grade equipment with calibrations traceable to NIST standards, and a staff of Ph.D.s to desuighand perform experiments. Before the founding of B LP,, Mills commissioned experiments at universities and industrial laboratories with positive and negative results in a search for catalysts. Independence is a false standard. One wants others to repeat experiments, and run controls, which Mills has consistently done [if anyone was paying attention]. Experiments done by an antagonist who does not **duplicate** Mills is useless, for it is an imitation, not a replication. The tests by Dr. Conrads in Germany are notable, for he con firmed the effects claimed by Mills using means which differed in detail but were consistent in principle. The situation with Rowan and Professor Jannsson: See his home page and resume at http://www.rowan.edu/open/colleges/engineering/programs/electricalcomputert . I live an hour's drive from Rowan. It was once a small teacher's college, but with a $100 million endowment for a new engineering school, Rowan got naming rights. Since then, Rowan has grown in prestige and scope. Now a university, it is closely associated with NJ Rutgers University. Jansson was a technical scout at Atlanctic City Electric in a search for new investment opportunities. He was also the first graduate from the new Rowan engineering school. For his Master's thesis he chose replication of a BLP test, for which BLP lent him a Seeback calorimeter. I visited the Rowan library and read is master's thesis. I have also visited with Jansson who told me he recommended BLP as an investment for his employer t the time, Atlantic City Electric. As a reward, Jansson was allowed to make a small personal investment in BLP; usually the ante is in the $xxx,xxx. When Mills turned to solid fuels, one mode involved a chemical charge measures by a special calorimeter. A contract was given to Rowan to replicate **measurements** of this ecperiment, and for the chemistry depart to verify the reaction and arrange for NMR scans of the reacted material to verify the production of hydrinos. There is a clip on YouTube of Jansson conducting the experiment. Janssongot his Ph.D. from Cambridge University in England. The fact that the apparatus was furnished by BLP does not invalidate the authenticity of the results: to allege otherwise is to suggest bribery on the part of BLP and duplicity on the part of the professionals doing the work. Having an advanced degree is no guarantee honesty, lack of such credentials is no mark of virtue. Study and observation is required [i.e. Faraday, Edison]. The Papp explosion was pure theater. The pulsed reactions of the BLP
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4
James, thanks for the even-handed reply. The press release is technically correct, but for the Vortex audience us easily misunderstood amidst all the claims reverberating there. The energy pulse generated by the solid fuel reaction is both very energetic and very short. Power is defined as a *rate of energy production/use*, so it is not wrong to claim megawatts in a sort of cry of triumph in a press release. Also if such continuous power were inefficiently handled in a one cubic foot device, it would melt. The Vortex audience is accustomed to thinking of continuous energy devices. In electronics devices that handle lots of power in a small space are common. A critical issue for continuous operation is regeneration of the catalyst so it does not become a consumable. Mills' concept and chemistry provides for such. The execution in a working device is in the future. Mike Carrell From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:02 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4 Thanks for the review of BLP's history. We have to avoid conflating the, so-far enigmatic, demo of the day before yesterday with the long history of work at BLP. That long history of work would indicate that, from the public's point of view, BLP is in the same boat as Rossi, et al, except having been funded at much greater levels: There is a real phenomenon but the theory is either unknown or has not gone through an open scientific process of testing -- understanding that replication at the early stages frequently requires the participation of the original investigator and the science does not benefit from critics nay-saying regarding independence. No one that I have seen has been particularly critical of the pulsed nature, per se, of either then experiment or of the eventual device (the press release even says the device can be made continuous). In a public demo of a _single_ pulse, you have to be in dimensions of energy -- not power -- and the calorimetry has to be static or bomb. So far, none of the verbiage has involved units of dimension energy and we have only indirect verbiage regarding the calorimetry. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: A familiar scene: critics who do not do their homework or claim 'objectivity' by moving goalposts and persistent negative spin. BLP in the years of study in the gas phase used microwave excitation and standard microwave practice with pure gases and commercial, laboratory grade instrumentation and water bath calorimetry. The latter was an insulated fish tan n in which the test cell was immersed, with a Joule heater, a stirrer, and a precision thermometer. With the Joule heater embedded with the test cell, it was possible to calibrate the response of the of the calorimeter to input power, and then to make accurate measurements of the energy produced by a test run. Outside qualified visitors observed and operated the system. This is a reliable way to measure energy from pulse reactions such as from the SF-CIHT cell, because the water bath integrates the energy produced in heating the apparatus. In posts to the BLP website about experiments, equipment used is identified. I have heard that BLP has accumulated $million in laboratory grade equipment with calibrations traceable to NIST standards, and a staff of Ph.D.s to desuighand perform experiments. Before the founding of B LP,, Mills commissioned experiments at universities and industrial laboratories with positive and negative results in a search for catalysts. Independence is a false standard. One wants others to repeat experiments, and run controls, which Mills has consistently done [if anyone was paying attention]. Experiments done by an antagonist who does not **duplicate** Mills is useless, for it is an imitation, not a replication. The tests by Dr. Conrads in Germany are notable, for he con firmed the effects claimed by Mills using means which differed in detail but were consistent in principle. The situation with Rowan and Professor Jannsson: See his home page and resume at http://www.rowan.edu/open/colleges/engineering/programs/electricalcomputert. I live an hour's drive from Rowan. It was once a small teacher's college, but with a $100 million endowment for a new engineering school, Rowan got naming rights. Since then, Rowan has grown in prestige and scope. Now a university, it is closely associated with NJ Rutgers University. Jansson was a technical scout at Atlanctic City Electric in a search for new investment opportunities. He was also the first graduate from the new Rowan engineering school. For his Master's thesis he chose replication of a BLP test, for which BLP lent him a Seeback calorimeter. I visited the Rowan library and read is master's thesis. I have also visited with Jansson who told me he recommended BLP as an investment for his employer t the time, Atlantic City Electric. As a reward
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 4
To stage your own 5 Megawatt demo for just over 100 bucks 1)Purchase 100 mW laser on eBay for about 30 bucks 2)Purchase a 50 MHz Wavetek 50 MHz Pulse Generator Model 802 for about $80 3)Hack the two using instructions on Sam's Laser FAQ to produce a 20 ns laser pulse 4)Pass the collection plate, brother - Praise the Lord
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 3
Mike,
If anyone has seen Mills' standard NDA, this is laughable since there is
absolutely no way that any of these tests are independent. It is a sad
mischaracterization to say, or imply, independence.
But of course, the strong NDA and payment for services does not mean that
the tests cannot be accurate, and they may be accurate, only that they are
FAR from independent.
Others can make of that what you will but beware - the independent tests
stopped with Thermacore, circa 1995.
Actually I have never expressed the view that Mills does not show an energy
anomaly. In all probability he does.
My contention is that the anomaly is clearly LENR related - and that Mills
is in denial that his reaction is a predecessor condition for optimizing
LENR.
From: Mike Carrell
This chapter is dedicated to Jones, others are welcome as well.
Please read:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/TechnicalPre
sentation.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GEN3_Harvard.pdf
In the Technical Presentation, read pp. 2-3, and 23-31 [but anything else
that suits your fancy].
The first two pages of the Technical Presentation is a terse summary of
GUTCP. Page 23 is a listing of methods identifying hydrinos.
The following pages discuss the conditions wherein H can act as a catalyst.
The potential energy of an isolated H atom is 13.6 eV. The energy of the
catalyst must be m(27.2] eV. Such can be supplied by many arrangements,
including 2H.2H H{1/4] + 2H + 24 eV. Because this is a three-body
reaction, it is seen only where here is a high concentration of H atoms
[such as at the cathode of in electrolytic cell in the apparatus on p.30. [I
speculate that H [h[1/4] catalysis may be a source of 'excess heat' in CF
electrolytic cell experiments. This is my conjecture.]
The cited pages above contain the core of the CIHT chemistry.
The apparatus illustrated on p.30 was built by BLP, but the reported study
and the spectrum of p.31 came from a study sponsored by GEN3 Partners at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. None were employees of LP.
An intense beam of protons is illuminated by an intense bam of electrons,
which combine to form a cloud hydrogen atoms in which many interactions can
occur. The light from these reactions is in the low nanometer range of soft
X-rays. The spectrum is recorded by a vacuuc spectrometer. No continuum
spectrum was produced by helium.
The six 'Validation' reports on the website deserve respectful attention.
Although on-site and coached by Mills, the 'validators' built he cells
themselves and conducted tests with instruments whose calibrations are
traceable to NIST. The reports and resumes are on the .website. Over the
years experiments by Dr. Conrads in Germany, and Dr. Jonathan Phillips, U.
New Mexico, have done supporting experiments. One of the six 'validaors',
ENSER corporation, went on to off-site, independent validation of the CIHT
cell operation. Their new report is on the BLP website.
Independent verification is a gold standard. Over the years several groups
have 'tested' Mills' claims. However, they did not *duplicated*the
instruments or protocols, effectively doing *another* non-Mills experiment.
Mike Carrell
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not 'claimed'. I don't know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant desiccants. Some examples include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal Activated charcoal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel silica gel As in the movie http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved= 0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei =kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHO b36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a 'placeholder' against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
That's gotta be the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump, still in production I think. From: Mike Carrell [mailto:mi...@medleas.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not 'claimed'. I don't know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant desiccants. Some examples include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal Activated charcoal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel silica gel As in the movie http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved= 0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei =kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHO b36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a 'placeholder' against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Mike, do you believe that those older cavitation devices operated at over unity? My main concern is that it is so difficult to make accurate measurements of that type when the answer is so very close to 1. Too bad the effective gain was not significantly higher. That would make our lives a lot easier unless we happened to be too close to one of those devices exhibiting too much gain! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 1:23 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not ‘claimed’. I don’t know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as desiccants. Some examples include Activated charcoal and silica gel As in the movie The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
*As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated.* For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, doesn’t that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated.* For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
I am no patent atty but I think the US Law changed last year from first to disclose to first to file, or something to that effect... On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, doesn’t that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated.* For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
FYI Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act The U.S. patent system has granted patents to the person who could substantiate that they were the “first to invent.” Fairly liberal mechanisms existed that created a “grace period” allowing inventors to receive patents from applications filed up to 12 months after public disclosure of their invention. The recently enacted law will soon shift the U.S. patent system to a “first-to-file” system, more closely aligned to the patent practices in the rest of the world. In many foreign jurisdictions, any public disclosure prior to the filing of a patent application renders the invention unpatentable. The new patent law brings the U.S. very close to this situation. Public Disclosure May Negate Patent Rights A long-standing requirement in U.S. patent law is that inventions must be “novel,” meaning the claimed invention must be different from what has already been discovered, invented, published, sold, or previously known or used by another (referred to in patent law as “prior art”). Under the new law, this requirement will be more strictly enforced with respect to “public disclosures,” so that any information that is available to the public prior to the filing date of the application is considered prior art. What is a Public Disclosure? A “disclosure” may include written documents (e.g., manuscripts, book chapters, theses, journal articles, posters, abstracts, grant proposals, etc.), oral communications (e.g., thesis defenses, seminars, or meetings), public use of research materials and prototypes, or sale or offer for sale of research materials and prototypes. Presentations to fellow researchers and students are generally not considered “public” disclosures, as long as the session is not open to the public or to visitors from any companies or other institutions. Discussing your invention with a researcher at another university or a representative of a corporation may be considered a public disclosure, depending on what information is shared. Exceptions for Public Disclosures are Risky and Narrow While some narrow exceptions exist in the new patent law regarding public disclosures by inventors of their own work, they are complex and it is unclear how the new law will be interpreted and applied by the USPTO. These exceptions may not protect against third-party disclosures becoming prior art and, therefore, are risky to rely on. It is also possible that a person could file a patent application based largely on your public disclosure, and even if you could prove that fact, your rights in a subsequent patent application may be diminished. To preserve patent rights, researchers must act with an abundance of caution and discuss all disclosures prior to any disclosure events. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:08 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I am no patent atty but I think the US Law changed last year from first to disclose to first to file, or something to that effect... On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, doesn’t that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated.* For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
What matters with patents is the specific wording of claims. Mills has on his board of directors a world-class expert in intellectual property. Igniting hydrogen with a spark in itself is not patentable: What Mills is doing is much more than that. Mike Carrell From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:09 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two I am no patent atty but I think the US Law changed last year from first to disclose to first to file, or something to that effect... On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, doesn't that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
What path both Papp and Gries have done is not ignite( implying combustion), they have produced supersonic expansion of plasma under spark discharge. That is exactly what Mills will demonstrate. Like you, the world class patent expert was not aware that a public discloser of the plasma expansion process under electric arc stimulation has be publically demonstrated. Sorry. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: What matters with patents is the specific wording of claims. Mills has on his board of directors a world-class expert in intellectual property. Igniting hydrogen with a spark in itself is not patentable: What Mills is doing is much more than that. Mike Carrell *From:* ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:09 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two I am no patent atty but I think the US Law changed last year from first to disclose to first to file, or something to that effect... On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Russ Gries has publically documented his experiment on the spark induced explosive expansion of hydrogen on YouTube. Under the new U.S. patent laws, doesn’t that give Russ the first to reveal patent rights to that process? Papp has the water IP rights tied down back in the 70's. That gives Mills nowhere to go for IP rights it seems to me. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated.* For your information, the explosive expansion of hydrogen, helium, and mixed noble gases have been demonstrated by Both Bob Rohner and Russ Gries among others in a cylinder/piston format. Russ has produced a theory paper. As of today, nobody has proved overunity power production (besides Papp) from this explosive plasma expansion including Mills. The energy gain in this water/hydrogen/spark combo must be low because of the amount of engineering care that must be applied to get the COP of such a system over one. *Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories*. This information is exciting. If you would be so kind, explain to me how these hydrinos are judged to be solely atoms and not atomic clusters, include how Mills can tell the difference between atoms and small atomic clusters in the material that he has isolated. This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Dave,, it has been a long time and my memory is a b it hazy. You might ask Jed Rothwell for more details. This guy was a careful engineer who built a device consisting of a large cylinder rotating in a close enclosure by a husky motor. The drum hat pits on its periphery to created turbulence. His idea was to heat wastewater without a boiler such that contaminants would not matter. As part of his tests, he provided an in-line dynamometer so he could measure the mechanical power input to the rotor. He had multiple thermometer measuring the inlet and out let temperatures, and a flowmeter. He was surprised that his measurements indicated over-unity performance. He approached Gene Mallove for an explanation. Gene was then operating a small testing laboratory for ‘new energy’ inventors. Gene bought a copy of the device with a grant from Arthur C. Clarke ans set it up in his lab. As received, the ekectric motor axis and the drum axis were not in sufficient alignment to safely operate the machine, and there was no in-line dynamometer, so it sat idle. Some time later a pair of guys surface with a ‘kinetic Furnace’ which thought to O?U. Gene’s guys made considerable effort in testing, concluding that O/U performance could not be verified. It was written up in Infinite Energy magazine. Some copies might still be available. About the same time a company in Russia was selling a space heater fir rooms with a motor-driven cavitator to heat the water. O/U was claimed, but no independent measurements were made. Other experiments with cavitation centered on high velocities when a bubble collapsed. I even saw a well-done experiment entered into a Philadelphia science fair where I was a judge. There is more ‘lore’ but no definite outcome. Mike From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Mike, do you believe that those older cavitation devices operated at over unity? My main concern is that it is so difficult to make accurate measurements of that type when the answer is so very close to 1. Too bad the effective gain was not significantly higher. That would make our lives a lot easier unless we happened to be too close to one of those devices exhibiting too much gain! :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 1:23 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not ‘claimed’. I don’t know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant desiccants. Some examples include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal Activated charcoal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel silica gel As in the movie http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei=kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHOb36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Bingo! That's the guy. He sold the company, I 'm happy that it still exists, but O/U performance is not claimed; it's just a good heater for wastewater. J. Mike Carrell From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:hoyt-stea...@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two That's gotta be the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump, still in production I think. From: Mike Carrell [mailto:mi...@medleas.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two Years ago an industrial water heater was marketed sing cavitation. The sales point was that it could use wastewater, but tests showed that it was an over-unity device. Over-unity was not 'claimed'. I don't know if they are still in business. Several investigators in the CF field used cavitation as a mode. Mills, in his work over the years has collected hydrinos in liquid-nitrogen trap and solid fuels; verified by independent laboratories. His methods and experiments have no relation to the Papp device. As far as I know, the physics/chemistry of the Papp device has not been clarified or duplicated. It remains an engaging topic for speculation. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:16 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Molecular_sieve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A molecular sieve is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant desiccants. Some examples include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal Activated charcoal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel silica gel As in the movie http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved= 0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei =kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHO b36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc The Andromeda Strain, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates *nascent H2O* which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a 'placeholder' against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
The cavitation experiments by LeClair show that water subjected to plasma cooling will produce nanoparticles of solid water formed from cooling water plasma. These small crystalline particles are the active agent in many water based nanoplasmonic LENR reactions including cavitation. I believe that water that has undergone of period of cavitation or spark discharge will contain sufficient numbers of nanoparticles to demonstrate Papp like water explosions when subjected to intense photon irradiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_sieve A *molecular sieve* is a material with very small holes of precise and uniform size. These holes are small enough to block large molecules while allowing small molecules to pass. Many molecular sieves are used as desiccants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccant. Some examples include Activated charcoal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal and silica gelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica_gel As in the movie The *Andromeda Strain*http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=3cad=rjaved=0CEgQFjACurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Andromeda_Strainei=kxLgUoT_BOLjsAT-7IKQDwusg=AFQjCNGjp3IWIwQyDUQcRJrZCUZFU8S53Asig2=AnTTdlHOb36ZT1F6_3KZ-Abvm=bv.59568121,d.cWc, these sieves can remove the Nano crystals from the cooled plasma flow, If hydrinos exist, they will not be filtered out of the condensed water. If the active agent is the nanoparticles, then the reaction will stop. To prove this, Mills can use a proper sized molecular sieve to determine experimentally that hydrinos are the active agent in the Mills reaction (AKA the Papp reaction and/or the LeClair reaction and/or the Santilli reaction} On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates **nascent H2O** which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter Two
Nanoparticle formation, superatoms, and Rydberg matter are an important subfield in chemistry. Mills, being a master chemist, should have been familiar with this science and should not have invented his own imaginary field of chemistry. Nanoparticles and their properties and application can explain all of the experimental results that Mills says supports the hydrino theory. IMHO. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I am pleased by the stir created by my previous post on this thread. I also now have a better understanding of the BLP posts. Readers have been fixated on the press release and the patent application and overlooked the paper “Solid Fuels that Form HOH Catalyst” which contains the key to understanding. HOH designates **nascent H2O** which must be formed by a chemical reaction apart from fluid water to have energy level necessary for catalysis. Several molecules are cited. When fluid water is added, and the mass elevated to an activation temperature, HOH is formed and available H atoms are induced to the hydrino state with intense release of energy. This is tested in the paper. The BLP device forms pellets which are hydrated and then placed in a reaction chamber where a short, powerful pulse of electric current elevates the pellet to the activation temperature, causing an explosive release of energy which is to be captured by an MHD coverter. The megawatts of power cited in the press release is scientifically accurate, but easily misunderstood in a rush to judgment based on cursory inspection. Apparently the pellet is not destroyed and can be rehydrated and reused, so it s not a consumable. The patent application has an illustration of two cylinder reciprocating engine. I believe that is a ‘placeholder’ against anyone who claims something of the sort as an implementation of the BLP process. Members of Vortex may see a semblance to the earlier work of Papp and Stanley Meyer who produced dramatic demonstrations that could not be explained or duplicated. The work of Mills has exposed a class of energetic reactions previously overlooked, but now elucidated by a comprehensive theory and experimentation and publication. Mike Carrell
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of *nascent* H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-c ode.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as dark matter and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of **nascent** H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM *To:* VORTEX *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com eric.wal...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
What is **nascent** H2O as a catalyst? Is this similar or identical to Santilli's HHO? On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of **nascent** H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM *To:* VORTEX *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.comeric.wal...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. Both have proceeded for decades in the expectation of a new power source for mankind. Defkalion belongs to the LENR world. There are a number of other 'exotic' energy devices proposed. Both BLP and LENR point to new phenomena not part of 'mainstream' physics and neither has yet a commercial system, although in my opinion, BLP is ahead. Mike Carrell From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:07 PM To: Vortex List Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Taking the hypothesis that Mills Hydrino theory is not valid, (please, take that hypothesis as an experience of thinking) is it possible according to given evidence that Mills and Blacklight experience a classic LENR+, similar to what Brillouin obtain from it's Qwave, similar to what Defkalion obtains from it's plasma pulse, similar to Mizuno work, or similar to more classic LENR ... could his third party test have simply validated a classic LENR+ 2014/1/20 Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com Dear Peter, as usual, Mills will proceed on his own agenda. On the SCP forum, he has mentioned he will show the device now illustrated and talk about applications. The website will be updated with more details. The MHD energy converter is not yet ready, so the overall package cannot be characterized yet. The Validation reports on the CIHT show the possibilities of *nascent* H2O as a catalyst, but designing an acceptable domestic appliance may be difficult. In the end, widespread public acceptance of devices is what counts, not the opinions of critics. Mike Carrell From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:00 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-c ode.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as dark matter and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
I've had a chance to read Jeff's helpful slides [1] and have some questions. But first I want to make sure I've gotten the basic points right. Here is my current understanding of Mills's theory (there are several related ones going around). I am trying to understand the main points of Mills's explanation as he presents it, rather than modifications that have been made to it by others (without saying anything about the usefulness of such modifications). Please correct any details I have gotten wrong. - A hydrino is a form of monoatomic hydrogen in which the electron has entered a redundant state, below the ground state (n=1). Redundant levels include 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc., all the way to 1/137, which is (approximately) the fine structure constant. - A hydrino is formed when the monoatomic hydrogen donor encounters a catalytic acceptor. - Acceptors are atoms or molecules that have a bond dissociation energy or a combined ionization energy of one or more of their electrons that is a multiple of 27.2 eV. Acceptors include water, which accepts either through bond dissociation, or through the ionization of three electrons, receiving as a result 81.6 = 3*27.2 eV; and a potassium atom, whose first three ionization energies are 4.3407 + 31.63 + 45.806 = 81.7 eV = 3*27.2 eV. - This transfer of energy to the acceptor is radiationless, in the sense that it only has effects in the near field, and it is accomplished via Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET). - When a hydrino is formed, not only is energy passed on to the acceptor via FRET, there is also an emission of photons in a broadband spectrum, which is bounded on one end by a well-defined cutoff. This second manner of transferring energy to the environment via broadband photon emission is due to the electron spiraling down to the new redundant energy level. - When an electron moves down to the lowest redundant level, 1/137, it becomes a photon. - The orbit of an electron at a given redundant level is described by an orbitsphere. The orbitsphere has a dipole moment, in which charge is concentrated in some parts of it more than others. This provides the basis for an alternative explanation for the Stern-Gerlach experiment, in which a spin quantum number was inferred for the electron by the clean bifurcation of silver atoms against a target under the influence of an inhomogeneous magnetic field, in contrast to a continuous distribution against the target, which is what would have been expected if there were no electron spin. - The orbitsphere describes the orbits of both redundant and non-redundant electron levels. All levels are thin and spherical in shape, in contrast to the large variety of electron clouds proposed in the atomic orbital model that is in wide use today. - Hydrinos are a possible explanation for dark matter, to which gravitational lensing and the fast angular momentum of certain galaxies is attributed. - Once a hydrino has formed, light does not generally interact with it, and it effectively becomes invisible. The hydrino continues to have mass and, hence, gravitational effects. - There are no characteristic peaks in spectra capturing the production of hydrinos, apart from those expected from the ionization of the acceptor. The generation of hydrinos must be inferred from the heat they impart to the catalyst and from the broadband distribution and predicted cutoff seen in spectra. Have I messed anything up? To what extent is the preceding account that of Mills, and to what extent has it been modified, either intentionally by others, or unintentionally by me? Eric [1] http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
From: Mike Carrell Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. This clearly defined kind of bifurcation is what Randell Mills and his financial backers would dearly love for you to believe. It can mean billions to them in the end. Mike could be correct on this or not, but it is imperative to state all of the options. For many on the fence - BLP has not yet come close to making a good case for that chemical only proposition. I can almost guarantee that Mills device will produce the same low levels of transmutation that are seen in LENR, and this is precisely why he lets no one into that Lab without the strictest NDA you have ever seen. It is his billion dollar secret and it is well-protected. In fact, it is just as likely that BLP is indeed the using same underlying modus operandi as LENR whether Mills likes it or not. Even the most brilliant inventor does not get to dictate the science and physics which make a device work or not. This will NOT be Mills prerogative, in the end - brilliant as he is. However, there is also a third view which has been voiced over the years on Vortex - and it is the one which gets comparatively little press because it pleases neither camp. This is the view that the hydrino is a predecessor state or condition which may produce a little excess energy on its own - but it inevitably goes to LENR as the next step. IOW the hydrino is the predecessor state to LENR. It is worth repeating that this stance pleases almost no one in either camp, and therefore to the contrarian - it must be correct :-) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
I agree with you, Jones. The hydrino or something like it allows LENR to occur. The only variation in the various theories comes from how this special state functions. Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR, as you note. He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. The only information of value is the recipe used to make energy. This recipe is guided by theory but the theory can not be patented so people cannot be stopped from using it as a guide to find better recipes. Mills and people in the LENR field all suffer from the same problem. They are addicted to their theory. If the theory is close to reality, they can make progress. However, most theories are not close to reality. Mills has a method that works up to a point. But, as you note as well, his theory, although impressive, has prevented him from finding the best recipe so far. Nevertheless, he has discovered some interesting behavior, just as LENR has done. The race is on to find out how these behaviors can be applied. I think LENR is ahead of the game because the important behaviors have been made public, not hidden as Mills has done. Rossi is ahead because he has applied these behaviors even though he does not understand their meaning. In contrast, Mills claims to understand the meaning, but is having a hard time finding an effective application. Perhaps this time he has. Only time will tell. When the smoke clears, I expect only one mechanism will be operating in both energy generators. Ed Storms On Jan 20, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Mike Carrell Alan , BLP belongs to the chemical world, LENR= Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a whole different world. This clearly defined kind of bifurcation is what Randell Mills and his financial backers would dearly love for you to believe. It can mean billions to them in the end. Mike could be correct on this or not, but it is imperative to state all of the options. For many on the fence - BLP has not yet come close to making a good case for that “chemical only” proposition. I can almost guarantee that Mills device will produce the same low levels of transmutation that are seen in LENR, and this is precisely why he lets no one into that Lab without the strictest NDA you have ever seen. It is his billion dollar secret and it is well-protected. In fact, it is just as likely that BLP is indeed the using same underlying modus operandi as LENR whether Mills likes it or not. Even the most brilliant inventor does not get to dictate the science and physics which make a device work or not. This will NOT be Mills prerogative, in the end – brilliant as he is. However, there is also a third view which has been voiced over the years on Vortex - and it is the one which gets comparatively little press because it pleases neither camp. This is the view that the hydrino is a predecessor state or condition which may produce a little excess energy on its own - but it inevitably goes to LENR as the next step. IOW the hydrino is the predecessor state to LENR. It is worth repeating that this stance pleases almost no one in either camp, and therefore to the contrarian – it must be correct J Jones
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
From: Edmund Storms Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR... He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. Excellent point, Ed This may come as a bombshell to a few vorticians ... tritium ... from Randell Mills ... wow, and no doubt Mills would like to take that particular report back. Never mind that it goes back over 20 years. Lucky for him that Fusion Technology is so stingy with their online access. But a slight amount of tritium is probably unavoidable in any reaction of hydrogen in a transition metal - a least one that runs for longer than a day or two. OTOH, the presence of tritium even in tiny amounts is UNEQUIVOCAL proof of LENR. So that's a pretty good thing (for everyone but BLP). The downside is that this could keep LENR out of the US house, or US automobile, until such a time that it can be dealt with by the bureaucracy. No problem for China. Breathing a bit of tritium could be an improvement over the normal air quality there :-) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Jones, tritium is only produced when H is used, as Mills is doing. Use of pure deuterium does not produce tritium while producing much more energy. Mills needs to switch to deuterium, but if he did he would have to admit he was causing a nuclear reaction. He has created a no win situation. Tritium is not a serious heath hazard. It is presently used in emergency signs in many buildings. Ed On Jan 20, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Mills focuses only on creation of the state, not its role in LENR... He took this stand early even though he saw and reported tritium production because he did not want to get sucked in the rejection hole into which LENR had fallen. Excellent point, Ed This may come as a bombshell to a few vorticians ... tritium ... from Randell Mills ... wow, and no doubt Mills would like to take that particular report back. Never mind that it goes back over 20 years. Lucky for him that Fusion Technology is so stingy with their online access. But a slight amount of tritium is probably unavoidable in any reaction of hydrogen in a transition metal - a least one that runs for longer than a day or two. OTOH, the presence of tritium even in tiny amounts is UNEQUIVOCAL proof of LENR. So that's a pretty good thing (for everyone but BLP). The downside is that this could keep LENR out of the US house, or US automobile, until such a time that it can be dealt with by the bureaucracy. No problem for China. Breathing a bit of tritium could be an improvement over the normal air quality there :-) winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Mills can hardly keep the transmutations secret forever. Is that what is taking him so long . . . trying to get those nasty pollutants out of his experiments to protect his theory? :-)
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Secrets, what secrets? He has published profusely. What may be withheld is know-how to optimize performance. There is a pervasive disbelief in his findings and an itch to 'improve' on his methods and surprise when his results are not seen. I have been at pains in my recent posts to identify the core problem in devising an application device. Apparently it is simply not seen or understood. When a BLP device becomes real there will be a rush to copy. Mike Carrell -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Mills can hardly keep the transmutations secret forever. Is that what is taking him so long . . . trying to get those nasty pollutants out of his experiments to protect his theory? :-) This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although *study* is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Hydrinos are hydrogen atoms whose electrons are at a lower energy state and whose orbital radius is reduced. The can for compounds as hydrides, but such is not yet exploited because of a lack of quantity. They are lighter than air and non-toxic. Mike Carrell From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:54 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Hydrinos are electron groups who need their collective action to function. Think of them like cooper pairs of electrons. Once the cooper pair is removed from the influence of the superconductor, they become normal everyday electrons. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:19 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: If hydrinos exist, the use of hydrino power may produce a surplus in hydrino gas. Its probable that this substance is no toxic and not a greenhouse gas. But I'm not so sure that will happened then it reach the ozone layer. Ozone is highly oxidative and may be destroyed by hyrinos. Are there any study about this? On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:17:05 -0500, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I'm a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it's worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills' back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of sub-ground states induced by the *close proximity* of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a ground state of *isolated* hydrogen atoms. The Resonant Transfer reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a *non-radiative energy transfer* from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer *isolated*. In Mills' current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills' task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills' experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of 'chemical' patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown reduction to practice by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as 'field notes' which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has led to misunderstandings by participants of Vo and CMNS to jump to conclusions, but others to dig in and do homework. The Home Page is current and contains links to relevant papers and the patent disclosure. The rest covers an earlier embodiment of CIHT with excellent validation reports. BLP is revising he website and has promised a demonstration of the new device on Jan. 28 to a restricted audience. Even that is not the whole system, for it will not include the magnetohydrodynamic cryogenic output module. Mills chooses his words carefully, and even apparently radical statements have an observational base. He must present a positive outlook to keep his investors happy without compromising the growing patent position. The current device is a compact machine to feed a series of fuel pills to a reaction chamber and to recharge the pills with ordinary water and reuse them. The reaction chamber zaps
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Dear Mike, Just about the BLP's Demo of Jan 28, I want to mention that DGT has presented a 9+ hours demo at ICCF 18 and 2 days before it has officially published A PROTOCOL predicting the paameters and results they will obtain during the demo. See please: DEFKALION'S TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html DEFKALION HAS KEPT ITS PROMISE http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-has-kept-its-promise.html I think Randy could do the same thing, it demonstrates that he rules the situation and the device. Plus he can explain what he actually has achieved , both in power and in energy. Such a Protocol is necessary, I think. Peter On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Mike, You say that hydrinos are dark matter. What do you base this statement upon? I have long believed that dark matter and energy do not actually exist, but am open to ideas. It seems that the scientific community comes up with concepts to explain everything except LENR by imagining possible solutions. They may be correct about the dark duo, but it is important for them to show some firm proof, which is lacking. Dave -Original Message- From: Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 2:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Eric, the point is simply force people to get a license and pay royalty if they sell product. A patent is basically license to sue. Undefended, it is useless paper. Once BLP is able to produce a commercially viable device, entrepreneurs in many countries will attempt to copy it. BLP is very open about the technology, although **study** is required because it is very new. A copier may even achieve partial success, but not optimum performance without help. The investors deserve to be repaid many times over for their patience. I once worked for RCA, the source for compatible color television technology, now a world standard. Although the patents expired, RCA sold licenses to major Japanese companies for technical assistance and access to RCA engineers. Ideally, Mills would like a basic patent on hydrinos, but they exist in nature as “dark matter” and cannot be patented. Mike Carrell *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.comeric.wal...@gmail.com?] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 11:35 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Dear Mike, The Mills concept of the electron is simplistic. Mills has made the ‘only one world mistake’. There are at least 500different phases of matter; each phase lives in its own world. Most of these new phases of matter involve the electron. To understand that particular world, one must study it in its own context. Each phase corresponds to a particular set of movements that the electron ensemble executes. The key concept is COLLECTIVE, in other word more than one election is required to dance. (Phys.org)—“Forget solid, liquid, and gas: there are in fact more than 500phases of matter. In a major paper in today's issue of Science, Perimeter Faculty member Xiao-Gang Wen reveals a modern reclassification of all of them. Using modern mathematics, Wen and collaborators reveal a new system which can, at last, successfully classify symmetry-protected phases of matter. Their new classification system will provide insight about these quantum phases of matter, which may in turn increase our ability to design states of matter for use in superconductors or quantum computers. This paper, titled, Symmetry-Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Systems, is a revealing look at the intricate and fascinating world of quantum entanglement, and an important step toward a modern reclassification of all phases of matter.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-phases-phase.html#jCp On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Hydrinos are hydrogen atoms whose electrons are at a lower energy state and whose orbital radius is reduced. The can for compounds as hydrides, but such is not yet exploited because of a lack of quantity. They are lighter than air and non-toxic. Mike Carrell *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, January 17, 2014 8:54 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP Hydrinos are electron groups who need their collective action to function. Think of them like cooper pairs of electrons. Once the cooper pair is removed from the influence of the superconductor, they become normal everyday electrons. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:19 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: If hydrinos exist, the use of hydrino power may produce a surplus in hydrino gas. Its probable that this substance is no toxic and not a greenhouse gas. But I'm not so sure that will happened then it reach the ozone layer. Ozone is highly oxidative and may be destroyed by hyrinos. Are there any study about this? On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:17:05 -0500, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I’m a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it’s worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills’ back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of “sub-ground” states induced by the **close proximity** of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a “ground state” of **isolated** hydrogen atoms. The “Resonant Transfer” reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a **non-radiative energy transfer** from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer * *isolated**. In Mills’ current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills’ task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills’ experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of ‘chemical’ patents. His
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Joe Papp invented and patented the technology that extracts power from water when stimulated by a spark discharge, with the water containing various chemical elements as catalysts. This energy from spark activated water can drive an energy conversion device specifically an engine or be used as an explosive. http://www.rexresearch.com/papp/2pappats.htm#3670494 The preferred distance between the two activating cells may vary from ¼ inch to ¾ inch. It is important however that *the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed position. * Many virtually instantaneous radiations, reactions, changes in energy levels, changes in direction of radiations due to electron charges absorbed by the collector plate and electromagnetic field effects, luminescence and fluorescence, photon electronic absorption and emission, endothermic resultants caused by the release of chlorine from the water, exothermic results caused by discharges between the points of the gap, etc., take place in the chamber. *The reversible reactions are controlled by the selection of the atomic constituents of the charge and activating cells and a unique supply of electrical energy.* One form of such control system, adapted for use with any multiple of two variable volume chambers herein before described, is shown in Fig. 4. This technology is now open source with the patents of Jo Papp expiring many years ago. Isn't Mills using preexisting intellectual property? On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I’m a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it’s worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills’ back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of “sub-ground” states induced by the **close proximity** of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a “ground state” of **isolated** hydrogen atoms. The “Resonant Transfer” reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a **non-radiative energy transfer** from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer * *isolated**. In Mills’ current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills’ task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills’ experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of ‘chemical’ patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown “reduction to practice” by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as ‘field notes’ which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Papp's patents are invalid. Those skilled in the art could not use his patents for beneficial use. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Joe Papp invented and patented the technology that extracts power from water when stimulated by a spark discharge, with the water containing various chemical elements as catalysts. This energy from spark activated water can drive an energy conversion device specifically an engine or be used as an explosive. http://www.rexresearch.com/papp/2pappats.htm#3670494 The preferred distance between the two activating cells may vary from ¼ inch to ¾ inch. It is important however that *the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed position. * Many virtually instantaneous radiations, reactions, changes in energy levels, changes in direction of radiations due to electron charges absorbed by the collector plate and electromagnetic field effects, luminescence and fluorescence, photon electronic absorption and emission, endothermic resultants caused by the release of chlorine from the water, exothermic results caused by discharges between the points of the gap, etc., take place in the chamber. *The reversible reactions are controlled by the selection of the atomic constituents of the charge and activating cells and a unique supply of electrical energy.* One form of such control system, adapted for use with any multiple of two variable volume chambers herein before described, is shown in Fig. 4. This technology is now open source with the patents of Jo Papp expiring many years ago. Isn't Mills using preexisting intellectual property? On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I’m a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it’s worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills’ back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of “sub-ground” states induced by the **close proximity** of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a “ground state” of **isolated** hydrogen atoms. The “Resonant Transfer” reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a **non-radiative energy transfer** from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer * *isolated**. In Mills’ current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills’ task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills’ experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of ‘chemical’ patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown “reduction to practice” by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as ‘field notes’ which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial
RE: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Oh no ! Say it ain't so, Joe. ya' mean the 300 mph submarine wasn't really powered by a water engine . http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papp.html From: James Bowery Papp's patents are invalid. Those skilled in the art could not use his patents for beneficial use.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
If hydrinos exist, the use of hydrino power may produce a surplus in hydrino gas. Its probable that this substance is no toxic and not a greenhouse gas. But I'm not so sure that will happened then it reach the ozone layer. Ozone is highly oxidative and may be destroyed by hyrinos. Are there any study about this? On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:17:05 -0500, Mike Carrell wrote: I'm a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it's worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills' back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of sub-ground states induced by the *CLOSE PROXIMITY* of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a ground state of *ISOLATED* hydrogen atoms. The Resonant Transfer reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a *NON-RADIATIVE ENERGY TRANSFER* from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer *ISOLATED*. In Mills' current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills' task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills' experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of 'chemical' patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown reduction to practice by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as 'field notes' which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has led to misunderstandings by participants of Vo and CMNS to jump to conclusions, but others to dig in and do homework. The Home Page is current and contains links to relevant papers and the patent disclosure. The rest covers an earlier embodiment of CIHT with excellent validation reports. BLP is revising he website and has promised a demonstration of the new device on Jan. 28 to a restricted audience. Even that is not the whole system, for it will not include the magnetohydrodynamic cryogenic output module. Mills chooses his words carefully, and even apparently radical statements have an observational base. He must present a positive outlook to keep his investors happy without compromising the growing patent position. The current device is a compact machine to feed a series of fuel pills to a reaction chamber and to recharge the pills with ordinary water and reuse them. The reaction chamber zaps the pills with a arc discharge which excites them into a reaction state which includes transition of H to H[1/4]. The time scale of this reaction is extremely short. Expressed in watts, the pulse is easily in the megawatt range as stated in the press release. Capturing this energy with a MHD module and converting it to 60 Hz AC will be another remarkable exercise, but such is within the state of the art of electric power technology. There are two paths ahead for BKLP CIHT technology: domestic appliance and industrial and motive resource. Both create electrical output from any water source, utilize cheap materials, and create zero pollution. Patents expire; eventually this technology can be utilized by any industrialized
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Hydrinos are electron groups who need their collective action to function. Think of them like cooper pairs of electrons. Once the cooper pair is removed from the influence of the superconductor, they become normal everyday electrons. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:19 PM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: If hydrinos exist, the use of hydrino power may produce a surplus in hydrino gas. Its probable that this substance is no toxic and not a greenhouse gas. But I'm not so sure that will happened then it reach the ozone layer. Ozone is highly oxidative and may be destroyed by hyrinos. Are there any study about this? On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:17:05 -0500, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I’m a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it’s worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills’ back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of “sub-ground” states induced by the **close proximity** of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a “ground state” of **isolated** hydrogen atoms. The “Resonant Transfer” reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a **non-radiative energy transfer** from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer * *isolated**. In Mills’ current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills’ task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills’ experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of ‘chemical’ patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown “reduction to practice” by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as ‘field notes’ which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has led to misunderstandings by participants of Vo and CMNS to jump to conclusions, but others to dig in and do homework. The Home Page is current and contains links to relevant papers and the patent disclosure. The rest covers an earlier embodiment of CIHT with excellent validation reports. BLP is revising he website and has promised a demonstration of the new device on Jan. 28 to a restricted audience. Even that is not the whole system, for it will not include the magnetohydrodynamic cryogenic output module. Mills chooses his words carefully, and even apparently radical statements have an observational base. He must present a positive outlook to keep his investors happy without compromising the growing patent position. The current device is a compact machine to feed a series of fuel pills to a reaction chamber and to recharge the pills with ordinary water and reuse them. The reaction chamber zaps the pills with a arc discharge which excites them into a reaction state which includes transition of H to H[1/4]. The time scale of this reaction is extremely short. Expressed in watts, the pulse is easily in the megawatt range as stated in the press release. Capturing this energy with a MHD module and converting it to 60
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Having spent little time in trying to understanding Mills ideas and therefore if someone knows, why does the Mills reaction need a spark to activate the hydrino formation process? It is natural to expect that an energy hole will extract energy from a close by hydrogen bound electron when the catalyst gets within a close range in any situation. A spark is a high energy item. It’s a seeming contradiction that a high energy event can cause an electron to lose energy. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I’m a long-standing observer/participant in Vortex, CMN S and the former Hydrino Study Group, and now the Society for Classical Physics [moderated by Dr, Farrell with Dr. Mills as a participant.] For what it’s worth, I have shaken hands with both Mills and Fleischmann. I think I can give some perspective on the current discussion. Mills’ back-story includes study at MIT where he gained new insight into the physics of accelerated electrons which led to his Orbitsphere model and the possibility of “sub-ground” states induced by the **close proximity** of energy holes presented by catalysts. Mainstream physics teaches a “ground state” of **isolated** hydrogen atoms. The “Resonant Transfer” reactions postulated and experimentally verified by Mills requires the **close proximity** of an energy hole receptor of specific magnitudes to effect a **non-radiative energy transfer** from the H atom, destabilizing it, which then shrinks into the hydrino state. In that moment, the H atom is no longer * *isolated**. In Mills’ current work, the favored hydrino state is H[1/4]; spectroscopic signatures of lower states have been seen. The energy release is measured at 200 times the energy required to produce an isolated H atom. Mills’ task has been to find a means to utilize this energy on a commercial scale. The above are not speculations, but based on experiments done with instruments calibrated to national standards by a staff which includes six Ph.D.s and independent laboratories. Mills’ experiments have included liquid, gas, and solid phases. The solid fuels include compounds of inexpensive materials when heated create the catalytic conditions for H atoms also in the molecule to transition to the hydrino state: hence CIHT- Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. This is the invention of master chemist. Mills has been supported by $[tens of millions] from private investors over a period of some 20 years. He is under no obligation to publish, but his publication record is exemplary, with over 90 Journal papers, three books available as free downloads from the BLP website. He has an obligation to protect his investors with a strong patent position. A irony is that his major discovery is world-changing but is a natural phenomenon which cannot be patented as such. This is typical of ‘chemical’ patents. His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Mills has shown “reduction to practice” by frequent posting on his website technical papers at each stage of his progress. One might see these as ‘field notes’ which with refinement wind up in juried technical journals listed on the website. Summary and tutorial information makes its way into the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, available as a free download form the website. As of the preset writing, the BLP website is in a very fluid state, which has led to misunderstandings by participants of Vo and CMNS to jump to conclusions, but others to dig in and do homework. The Home Page is current and contains links to relevant papers and the patent disclosure. The rest covers an earlier embodiment of CIHT with excellent validation reports. BLP is revising he website and has promised a demonstration of the new device on Jan. 28 to a restricted audience. Even that is not the whole system, for it will not include the magnetohydrodynamic cryogenic output module. Mills chooses his words carefully, and even apparently radical statements have an observational base. He must present a positive outlook to keep his investors happy without compromising the growing patent position. The current device is a compact machine to feed a series of fuel pills to a reaction chamber and to recharge the pills with ordinary water and reuse them. The reaction chamber zaps the pills with a arc discharge which excites them into a reaction state which includes transition of H to H[1/4]. The time scale of this reaction is extremely short. Expressed in watts, the pulse is easily in the megawatt range as stated in the press release. Capturing this energy with a MHD module and converting it to 60 Hz AC will be another remarkable exercise, but such is within the state of the art of electric power technology. There are two paths ahead for BKLP CIHT
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
Is such obscurity is the criteria for evaluating the value of a good patent, then Joe Papp produced a world class patent of the first rank. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP
I wonder if Mills sees strong magnetic fields as does DGT. If so, what might be the explanation for this strong magnetic field. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Is such obscurity is the criteria for evaluating the value of a good patent, then Joe Papp produced a world class patent of the first rank. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: His patent disclosers are descriptive of many possible strategies and ingredients [to catch any copiers] while concealing in plain sight the optimum path which s disclosed to licensees. Why would he intentionally make it hard for people to work out how to build the devices described in his patents? My understanding is that if people skilled in the art cannot do it, he risks losing the patent. If they can replicate and wish to use the procedure or device in something that they wish to sell, they must negotiate a license. Eric
